at 4.8 GHz, i think really not. AT 5 GHz maybe, but we dont know at 100% sure, if this score is from 5 GHz run (or maybe higher at 5100/5200 MHz).
at 4.8 GHz, i think really not. AT 5 GHz maybe, but we dont know at 100% sure, if this score is from 5 GHz run (or maybe higher at 5100/5200 MHz).
Its not comparable to anything, different version of CB.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Quote:
Behind CPU-Z that ran on this system overclocked, a new version of Cinebench was present. It will be based on the engine of Cinema 4D R13 (current Cinebench is based on rather old version 11.5), the availability of software is not announced yet).
you right....we are idiots :-D...First time, I thought, is it R11.5 :)
What is the current consensus on what the 8350 is tweaked orochi cores or real PD cores like in Trinity? I'm confused now as to which it is going to be. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Thanks that's it! I missed it :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanical Man
apparently Oct 18th is the launch date, don't quote me on that
or you can quote you know who :rolleyes:
also rumor that power consumption is worse than FX-8150 haha lol wow if thats true...jsut wow
You-know-who is full of sh1t as usual, FX-8350 will be Piledriver cores, NOT Orochi respin. FX-8350 has new features of Piledriver core (FMA3, half-precision convert CVT16), also idle power and clocking optimizations introduced in Trinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by xBanzai89
AMD is excellent in leaving everyone in the dark.. ;)
I only know the coolaler forum thread and you-know-who that messed with this topic. It can be even the very same CPU. Noone knows how old it is. C0 stepping is ready since at least 3/4 year. IDK why they should put it out so late.... We will see if mr-always-right will hold his ground ;)
Well what AMD showcased recently(5Ghz watercooled) has the same CPUz characteristics as what Cooleler/"blogger" had shown. So it's likely that OR-C0 is what AMD calls Piledriver for FX series. It will be interesting when 5800K launches in parallel and clock for clock tests are done between FX4350 and 5800K :).
trinity will be faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6201/a...architecture/2Quote:
Steamroller brings no significant reduction in L2/L3 cache latencies. According to AMD, they’ve isolated the reason for the unusually high L3 latency in the Bulldozer architecture, however fixing it isn’t a top priority. Given that most consumers (read: notebooks) will only see L3-less processors (e.g. Llano, Trinity), and many server workloads are less sensitive to latency, AMD’s stance makes sense.
possible reason it can't match Trinity?
Found this on my CF card:
Attachment 130120
have fun :)
nice....do u have (someone) Cinebench R13? I can test it with FX-8150...
waiting on power consumption review between 8150 vs. 8350
haven't seen anything on it yet which leads me to believe its not good
I'm sure idle is fine but I bet full load is worse
Can somebody please explain me why there is now a "new" Cinebench R13, when Cinebench R14 just launched?
http://www.maxon.net/products/new-in.../overview.html
I hope that R13 bench was just internally and they will soon launch a R14 version.
Cinebench is a benchmark and there is no "new" Cinebench for now. There is a beta that AMD used. There is a new engine Maxon produced though (which is not to be confused with the benchmark).
This is true, but their benchmark is based on their Cinema 4D software. So Cinebench R13 = running the R13 engine, and they usually come with tons of optimizations. Not that it matters, I suppose people will be happy to have a new Cinebench to play with :DQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
Here the subject is discussed, Bulldozer gets quite good compared to Phenom II X6 @ R13.
http://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/topic/684...3/#entry502532
Here is some new info on FX-8350 and A10-5800K from TechPowerUp
http://www.techpowerup.com/172376/AM...-Near-IDF.html
Here is the original source
http://www.hardware.fr/news/12617/id...o-vishera.html
Congrats on your first post!
Posted on previous page already ;) . Congrats for the 1st post :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwar
First Vishera pre-order prices:
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2...iver_CPUs.html
always BLT:rofl:
always prices wrong
web marketing positioning:down:
prices will be lower
I hope so - those prices look high to me unless there have been some significant improvementsQuote:
Originally Posted by Maxforces
Yep... BLT always seems to list early, and their prices are usually high. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxforces
I'm jonesing for some new AMD gear, and if the 8350 is really going to launch ~$260 I'll just play with the 5800K Trinity until the prices come down... :yepp:
They listed some A10's earlier http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/s.cgi...25&s_all=HJBOX
Considering their pricing history, if I can pick up a 5800K for ~$130 I'm sure it could keep my attention for a few months. :D
Wow, SUPERKAMES....
I'm hoping you haven't pushed that chip yet, or you need to improve your FX tweaking skills...:rolleyes:
My hopes for the 8350 are a little higher than that. My OC'd 8150 beats those mem clocks @ a lower CPU frequency.
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...WithHotfix.png
@Daveburt714 :
I cant show everything right now . Sorry...:D
superpi 32M at stock do you can?:) (this benchamrk showing nothing about real performance and still a bit for me...)
[edit
Daveburt try to use same aida version and same memory timings,freq and CPU-NB ;)
Thanks for the sneak peak SUPERKAMES! Any chance we can see some more before NDA lifts? :D
Did not see this one in here yet.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2gxjns4.jpg
It's on previous page :).
U sure? i dont see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
yes, is here...Cinebench R13...I want this version....
It's practically the same image as the one on the previous page and the one(s) hardware.fr posted...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanical Man
Yes you can .Maybe the last thing from me before NDA lifts .But very important & impressive. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
You can see the Cinebench R11.5 @4.5ghz ~ 7.7x pts .
--> at the same speed the I7 2600K ~ 8.82 pts as I know . :D
Attachment 130190
But in realworld application , with the two famous 3D aplication + renderer : 3dsmax 2011 + Vray 1.5SP5 , the thing you already know seem to be stronger.:D
Rendering time (second): Lower is better:
- FX 8120@4.5ghz : ~ 679s
- I7 2600K@4.5ghz : ~ 621s
- The thing you already know :~ 580s
Attachment 130201
Attachment 130191
Attachment 130192
...maybe its realworld rendering performance is similar to a quadcore I7 Ivy Bridge ..
...It must be very important to anyone who care about computer graphic....May try mentalray later.:D
Hope I didn't come off harsh... It was pretty late. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SUPERKAMES
When does the NDA lift? Any chance you could share some x264 FHD benchmarks?
http://downloads.guru3d.com/x264-FHD...load-2825.html
If you can't I understand, don't want to get you in trouble...
Thanks for sharing! :clap:
So again, in Cinebench 11.5 it seems we get like 5-7% more.
Cinebench R13 and R14 renderers show a pretty good leap forward for all FX processors because of the new instruction sets enabled in the renderer.
People should test Cinema 4D render times instead of cinebench against Intel when Vishera arrives....
So...I wake up and I must benchmarked my FX-8150 at the same CPU clocks. Others settings you have at printscreen...I think, it is not bad gain in performance...
FX-8150@4.5GHz 2400MHZ NB and RAM = 7.20 points so FX-8350 7.77points, this is 0.57point up :). So in theory, OC FX Zambezi can 8.2 points, Vishera could about 8.8 points
http://i.imgur.com/hCzFD.png
Dirty OS?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
I'm working on getting a media relation / PR guy review thang with AMD...so lets see where this goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveburt714
AFAIK nobody is supposed to even tell when NDA lifts...
yeah that would be 8%. For oldfashioned badly bully compatible R11.5 it is a nice result, since it reflects gains achieved by general tweaks.
But still, i want to have that damn R13 cinebench version ASAAAAP. Noone out there that has a leak??? And then test it vs Intel.
The 4.88 ghz is the turbo in flankers screen? Anyway, the 2.4 ghz NB and 1.2 ghz ram is a bit of a tuning i doubt AMDs showcase rig has to offer... Bad timings tho :D
Flank, could you rerun that CB 11.5 at 2.2GHz CPU-NB and ram at 800 8-8-8? That is what Superkames is running i guess. Your score might be slightly lower then.
ok, give me some minutes or hour, now I have breakfest and relax time in game :).
FX 8120@4.5ghz cinebench R11.5 . :D
Attachment 130202
Correct, the NDA is always under NDA :rofl: Really makes sense, since you aren't supposed to talk about what you know there are no reason to spill the beans when "something" which you can't talk about launches ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
7.77 vs 7.42 points is only a very small improvement. :( If this new gen CPU can't do at least 9 points it's hardly worth upgrading imho.
Here is it, lol, score is better ( i think, because timings 8-8-8 1600 is better for render than 10-12-12 2400)
http://i.imgur.com/zmeM2.jpg
Remember, this is not uniq new architecture, is it only refresh as SB to IB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
take your time
Cinebench 11.5 is just outdated software.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
A CPU is not stronger than other just cause of his design but cause of the software and how much that software is optimized.
http://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/topic/684...es-in-c4d-r13/
Cinema 4D R13 (RC 45040)
FX-8120 4.5Ghz 171sec
PII X6 3.8Ghz 240sec
FX 30% faster / X6 40% slower
Cinebench R11
FX-8120 4.5Ghz 7.25pts
PII X6 3.8Ghz 6.36pts
FX 14% faster
See the pattern?
Typical AMD fanboism. If the hardware sucks we blame it on the software. All benchmarks older than a year should go straight out of the window because they've become obsolete, right? Sorry man but that just doesn't make sense. AMD should support legacy instructions as well as the newest instructions.
Never saw this remark when a new Intel cpu came out, they seem to be strong in every benchmark thrown at it, regardless of how old the bench is. I'm no Intel fanboi by any means but we got to see things how they are, not how we want them to be.
hmmm ... cinebench 11.5 is a little bit like super-pi, it has no real relevance anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
... but if you look at the 3dsmax/vray results, it's an improvement of ~17% ... ;)
@4.5ghz I saw some thing like this :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Daveburt714
Attachment 130206
@All : I'm not PR for AMD ,I'm an architect ,and just want to show you something anh I wish that you can test them yourself .:D
For more 3sdmax/Vay or mentalray results:http://www.behardware.com/articles/8...es-on-am3.html
Maybe after NDA , they can test that for you again . I have no benefit to show the wrong things.
Hi guys,
I just finished this Cinebench runs.
CINEBENCH R11.5
Attachment 130216
HYBRID CINEBENCH R14/11.5
Attachment 130217
Edit
CINEBENCH R11.5 @4890
Attachment 130218
HYBRID CINEBENCH R14/11.5 @4890
Attachment 130219
Hope this helps somehow. :)
It's pretty obvious than we'll the same improvements already shown with trinity + some extra from the l3 cache.
Zeus
When intel is the de-facto standard(from Core2 to IB it's a predictable and evolutionary path with strengths different from AMD's) and the competition releases a new arch with some nice instructions one would expect than software that take advantage of them will show what the new cpu has to offer.
Fully agreed mate but that doesn't mean they can slacken off on older instruction sets. Intel's strength seems to be that it can do both where AMD only wants you to see how good benches with new instructions run to hide their weak(er) side.
It would be the same thing as to say how well it runs on Windows 8 while most still run Windows 7 for example.
I don't mean to turn this into an AMD vs Intel fight as we've had enough of that in the past but it's an observation that cannot be ignored. ;)
I agree with thinks, the newest software is better optimized (R9 Cinebench to R10 and to R11.5 now or new R13). But we can not say, the R11.5 is very old or archaic. I think, performance of FX in Cinebench R11.5 is not bad. Is it about 80% 4c/8T Sandy Bridge 2600K. We can to say, superpi is archaic benchmark for modern CPUs. The main problem is x87 and FX, there is different story in architecture than with Phenoms II, doesnt mean PII is stronger in single performance. Really not. Clock for clock maybe yes a bit, with stock speeds is single performance ratio of FX better than PIIs.
Otherwise I agree with Zeus, Intel CPU are strong everywhere, single and multi. AMD only in multi (ratio multi scaling is better at AMD than at Intel!). The way for AMD is making Steamroller much, much better in FP point and single thread performance or let classic Bulldozer uarch back and focus at something new (APU is good too, but the problem will be still software support for iGPU acceleration)
An encoding rate of >2fps is a nice improvement on an app that I (and many other people) actually use. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by SUPERKAMES
After seeing this, the 5ghz OC on a little closed loop water settup, and the aggressive pricing they've got my money!
Eh, who am I kidding. They had my money anyway...
I'm an AMD junkie! :rofl:
Thanks for running that for me!!
I'm hoping for 5ghz on my nzxt havic 140...stable in prime95 for 30 min
If so I buy
Dave, i'm really looking forward to see how will do on this new platform. I promise that if it beats my current set up i will return to the AMD camp. :D But to be honest i doubt it very much.
Agree with you Flank that in multithreaded benches Bulldozer didn't do too bad but single threaded was so bad it almost made me cry. It's been the first time was unable to beat my SuperPi 1M result from my former set up.
With my current set up i have already done 1M at 6.848 sec and the cold weather is yet to come. When will we see that on AMD you think? Best 1M with my Bulldozer was low 16 seconds and 14.xxx on PII so it probably is a long way.
Prices for the new AMD cpu's (or are they apu's?) don't seem too bad though.
i would never use superpi as the comparison for if i should get a cpu
i look at tasks that i actually do, like gaming and rendering, and just a bunch of 2d tasks
so i care about 3-4 threaded perf, idle power, and total multi threaded perf that can be gained on safe 24/7 volts under water. which is why i went with a 2500k. i think for amd to be worth it for me, they need to up their low thread perf by 20% or more. and as far as value goes, i do consider that. so if amd was 10% worse but 30% cheaper, i probably would pick it up. so thats my thought process for purchases. i just wanted to point that out since it would be pointless to me to look at superpi for any reason other than extreme benchmarking (where its more about fun rather than function and price)
The pricing that I have seen is $253 for the 8350 and $242 for the 8320 - seems high to me, am I missing something? (unless there is a substantial improvement in performance or power usage)Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveburt714
The reason I say this is that a 2500K can be had for $160 and a 3570 for $190.
I'm using an AMD board now with a Thuban (also have a 6100 that lives in a drawer now) and would love to stay with this board because of the 6 Sata III ports.
The only pricing I've seen so far was from BLT preorder. They've had a history of being ~20% higher with early listings...Quote:
Originally Posted by sequoia464
Time will tell I quess, but like I said, I'm a junkie so what's $50. :wth: :)
4.5%Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
For comparison what does a 1100T score in Cinebench 11.5?
About 15% improvement in V-Ray from what SUPERKAMES posted. That was enough to take AMD from being behind 2600k by around 10% to ahead by about 7%. And that's at the same clocks. We are looking at FX 8350 being 7% faster at rendering at the same clocks than 2600k and it hitting higher clocks. If we see 5Ghz on air on FX 8350 and IB doesn't reach that high, FX 8350 may end up being the fastest CPU in this price range for rendering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
Cinebench r11.5 is old. Rendering software is *constantly* changing and improving. To insist we use an older piece of software is ridiculous. That's like saying if we have two pieces of software that does the same thing, and one uses a better compiler and is faster that it doesn't matter. It matters greatly and if someone renders on FX 8350 in Linux (say Gentoo and they compile with latest GCC with flags to use FX 8350 instructions) it's going to mop the floor with a 2600k.
It is the same with transcoding software. Who is going to use old software?
This is why open source is so great and I don't think it's a huge coincidence that Linux for steam is going to roll out about the same time as Vishera. This will probably end up the same as it always does with Intel fanboys. AMD brings something new to the table and the Intel fanboys say it's useless, then Intel gets it and it's awesome. Just like when we had Netburst vs K8 (I'm talking about clocks), IMC vs FSB, x86_64
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlvx
Now you're the one turning this into an AMD vs Intel fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
First off, you are reading selective. I'm not insisting we should use "older" software, all i'm saying is that current hardware should at least support it. Intel does, so why AMD not? I have a hard time calling CB 11.5 old sofware as it has only been released what? Two years ago?
Second, you're comparing an old generation Intel CPU to an AMD one that hasn't even been released yet. Doesn't make sense to me.
Third, you are assuming FX8350 will do 5G on air, how can you be so sure it will do that as i'm still yet to see the first 5G Prime/LinX stable Zambezi cpu on air or water. I have seen a couple of Ivy's doing 5G on water though. I think even mine can do that given enough volts but i'm not willing to push that much volts for 24/7 operation.
I'm not trying to bring AMD down as i have owned more AMD rigs than Intel so your last sentence makes zero sense again. I'm just being realistic and reality is that atm Intel is king of performance. Like it or not. Unless you can prove me otherwise.
IB not much (most of them only 4400=newest batchs up to 4700 MHz average), SB is better for air/WC OC
but you need add +200MHz to match performance of IB. I have 2 SB stable 4.8 and 4.9 and one fx 8150 stable 4.8Ghz. I can forget about the 5GHz on two platforms 24/7.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Well, its Intel (all time No. 1) vs. AMD (hoping to find another "game changer").
AMD has opted to concentrate on future performance, they were looking for the right architecture for the next few years. Why? Because they dont have a chance beating Intel in their own game. Intel is the one that will let AMD bulldoze and steamroll the new instructions (because they can easily adopt it and then again strike AMD in their "changed game") while sitting back comfortably and watching the market change. So they always have the faster optionfor old software, cause that is what they concentrate on. And guess what? They are slowing down software improvements with that strategy. The software market will wait for Intel to adopt new instruction sets.
It will be like this forever, i cant see this changing...
Agreed, Intels foundry business will keep Intel ahead of AMD forever but competition from ARM should start to make a serious challenge within ~ 5 years IMHO .....Quote:
Originally Posted by Oese
In terms of overclocking i think current Zambezi and Ivy Bridge are about equal with Ivy slighly in the lead maybe. There's a thread about overclocking Ivy in the Intel section and you can see a lot of people running their Ivy's at 4.6-4.8GHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Most Zambezi's run somewhere between 4.4GHz and 4.7GHz i guess? Still none at 5GHz but there's a few Ivy's running 5G.
Then again, my Zambezi at 4.6G seemed stable but i got the odd BSOD now and then, even under the slightest load. No idea what was causing this as it all seemed rockstable. (prime)
This is the last i've said about Intel in this thread, it's not my intention to turn this thread into a mud fight. I like AMD as much as that other brand. I really do and i really hope Piledriver and Steamroller will rock.
it looks promising! if it does 5ghz stable with aircooler on cinebench and games, i buy it
Oeses comment is excellent, it explains why one has to be realistic and expect from product from respective brand. It is way too naive to expect small player to outrun Goliath in order to convince software makers.
However, I see more in use of Linux in future if Valve supports it. Linux is perfect platform for AMD cpus.
I hope see Zeus back in AMD :D I always upgrade to newer softwares and ignore Super Pi haha.
its not clever to blame on GPU because it is slow on non gpu supported apps compared to gpu supported ones. Similar reasoning on CPU sides :up:
not true... 100 MHz. U can not compare example i7-3770K(3.5GHz) vs i7-2700K (3.5GHz) because turbo at SB-DT working different than at IB-DT. If you did know yet, read some manuals or test it ,-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxforces
FlanK3r
it is 150-200MHz most of the time is 200Mhz not 100 and who test with turbo clock to clock
not., again not...
there is clock to clock comparison tab at 4200MHz (turbo off). As you can see, average is only 3.42% better than Sandy-DT.
Attachment 130248
AND OC vs power consumption vs Cinebench performance against SB-DT
Attachment 130249
PS: the difference between Zambezi and Vishera could be simillary as between SB-DT and IB-DT (so about 3-5% average clock to clock)
3-5% average clock to clock wont give you 100MHz, performance wont scal 100% with MHz.
even if scaling will be perfect 1:1 you need 126Mhz-210MHz to much IB 3-5% average clock to clock
4200+ 3%=4326
4200 + 5%=4410
if there is perfect scaling, as is known it is not perfect
On average you need 150-200 not 100
look again at tab...did you seen? Or effectivity performance/power consumption. In my opinion is SB better for classic OC ratio/performance/power consumption. You can tets easily in home (or I can), test 4800 MHz SB vs 4700MHz IB and you will see. I have of course both CPUs...
OCCT
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/l...ps9b16f3cd.png
it`s all over web like this
1.25v compared to 1.38v
not sure how stable each is. or what the cooling used is. or if they did an IHS mod on the IB. or what the temps are. need that info to know if one chart has any weight.
its easy to find a review that puts things in a perspective that someone is looking for, because the OC power consumption can be anything based on how you build the PC.
i did a little review on power consumption based on temps. my 2500k can be at 234w load or 246w just from letting the temps go from 48c to 54c. being able to keep that IB cool will shave off insane wattage. im not even going to compare voltages because any OCer knows that is the biggest factor. just cause this guy "needed" 1.38v for 4.7ghz does not mean everyone else does. IB is pretty good in the mid 4ghz range, but to reach 5ghz you need to really force feed it some electricity, where SB was nearly linear all the way up to 5ghz. if you were limited to an all in one water loop (like a H80) or air cooling, i would not recommend IB for OCing.
1.25V with E1 is very rare...I have average chip and I need 1.375V for 4.68 GHz and 100C in load :). But back to Vishera, Intel forum is at otherside :)...
I'd really like to have some benches in r13 cinebench AMD vs. Intel. If AMD really gets a +40% boost from newer cinema 4d engines, then this might be the change AMD was looking for.
If only cinebench, which represents an actuall app and new technology in contrast to SuperPi etc., would have recognized bulldozer and the correct renderpaths right at launch, the whole picture could have been different.
It would have been obvious, how powerful the new arch is besides its memory bandwidth, and it would have been obvious, that it is the software not using latest tech that slows down bully in games etc.
People would have said "ok, in games it runs in gpu limitation, and in apps i get more power with the latest tech. good processor at a good price. ok, downside is higher power consumption, but i get higher perf for that too, right?"
Now, 1 year after release, there are some very unpopular benches in linux environment that show bully can actually hold its ground, but much much more popular cinebench r11.5 which is the bench bully is worst looking in.
And the new cinebench not available anywhere...
If the rendering speed under cinema 4d R13 is truly +40% on bully/vishera, then we get 7.7 against like 8.3 CB Points R11.5 vs. R13 what is only 10% more points in R13. Now if doing the math, Intel points then must be lower in R13 CB then in R11.5... You did think the last thought about what would happen then to the AMD vs Intel discussion, not me :)
This pretty much are in line with the benchmarks tom's did with piledriver vs zambezi in single thread equal clock. 15% faster plus ~2% from the L3 cache, so... please leak more.Quote:
Originally Posted by SUPERKAMES
If AMD delivers the promise of 15% improvement on top of piledriver we will be talking about ~30% performance improvement in just two years. Not bad since this is the last performance CPU from AMD ;)
Can someone tell me how u thank someone? I'm retarded.
you need post count of 100 to thank someoneQuote:
Originally Posted by Piledriver
IPC won't be 15% higher uniformly. You will have some workloads that will show little to no improvement(0-3%) and some seeing pretty high improvement(~15+%). On average IPC improvement will be in the range of 6-10% and clock improvement will be in the similar range(same max Turbo,higher all core Turbo and higher stock clock). On average FX8350 should be 15-16% faster than FX8150,both at stock. In some workloads the difference may be a huge 25+% though.
each processor gets jump performance under cinema 4d R13 comparing to cinema 4d 11.5.There is no magic only for bully/visheraQuote:
Originally Posted by Oese
PII X4 3.9ghz
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/l...ps2a7373ff.jpg
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/l...ps58456c2e.jpg
r11.5- 5.27
r13- 4.41
FX 8150 4.5ghz
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/l...psf303d776.jpg
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/l...ps1c5ef1e6.jpg
r11.5- 3.15
r13- 2.49
2600K 4.5ghz
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/l...ps54080ed5.jpg
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/l...psa03f68a8.jpg
r11.5 - 2.51
r13- 2.33
vishera will be faster than old SB in cinema4d r13 clock to clock, nice after almost 2 years
Ah thanks, i just read somewhere in this thread.
But still from your tests SB gains only 10% whilst Bully gains like 25%. What i didnt expect is the Phenom ii to gain 20% also... How come? Even this one didnt get the right optimizations in r13 even though its rather old?
Given these results, cb13 points should still go down in relation to cb11.5 for SB, whilst Vishera gets a plus..
I think I'm going back to AMD from SB simply because C4D is developing nicely with AMD now. Love having at least one application that goes better on this gear, finally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oese
FX-8350 4.5GHZ = 7.77 points in R11.5
How much MHz up need FX-8150 Zambezi for similar score?
4715 MHz and "only" 7.64
http://i.imgur.com/G8V50.png
4740 MHz and still 7.66
http://i.imgur.com/noZsC.png
4786 MHz and 7.72 points
http://i.imgur.com/gBhrK.png
4815 MHZ and 7.76, finally :)
http://i.imgur.com/bHgHL.png
There could be a bit difference between boards and win7 settings, so we can to say, AMD Zambezi FX need +240 MHz gain for the same score as Vishera FX in Cinebench.
Thanks for the heads up, i gave up a couple times, but yesterday i really wanted to thank the leaks and i was going crazy, searched everywhere... :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evantaur
These questions head to the manufacturer,perhaps more friendly compiler.AMD users should be happy.There is no difference between R13 and r14Quote:
Originally Posted by Oese
Yeah seems like r11.5 underrated phenom ii also.
screw it why is r13/14 not released as a bench already?
@Maxforces :
Can you give me the 3D scene (for testing with cinema4d r13) ? anh which renderer did you use ? :D
Thanks.
http://www.oyonale.com/modeles.php?lang=en&page=58
default renderer 800x600
Those IB numbers are really bad because of INTC screwing up the TIM. When u remove the IHS and use a good TIM, those #s come way down on CPU core and temps. Anyone that OC's a IB pulls the IHS now. IB is much closer than the chart shows with proper TIM. When INTC gets those parts back to being soldered, it will be a much better CPU comparison to SB. The core temps will drop ~25degC with good TIM/soldered IHS. There are a few threads in the INTC forum that chronicle this very well. INTC will eventually fix this issue.
So bring this back around, that comparison is not really that valid, as the IB core is really much better than the chart shows.
RussC
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
And until that happens we have what we have. What-if comparisons are valid only in theory.
it is the same as to say, FX could be good, if start clocks was 4/4.5 GHz because fail of Glofo :)...
Anyone have an update on the release date? I have heard Oct 12 and Oct 23.
BLT is still showing 10-12 as an ETA for them .. http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/...er_id=!ORDERID!
APUs should be launching Oct 2nd while new FX is anywhere from Oct 17th to Oct 22nd. BTW Windows 8 launches Oct 26th IIRC so it might be a clue for a launch date. It does have optimized scheduler for Bulldozer so AMD is maybe waiting for a combined launch so they can get those ~3-7% performance benefit(which is not bad at all ;) ).
Piledriver also , air cooler only.:D
Attachment 130300
PS:Thanks Maxforces , I'll try the Cinema4D file later , maybe on Friday .
Thanks for that result SUPERKAMES :). It looks great!